• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Developer Log - Stardate: 23724.7

The Statement

Last week, in Dev Log #1, PDX_Ruk described the genesis of Star Trek: Infinite. But how do we actually build a grand strategy game of Star Trek? I love these kinds of games, and I have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours in Paradox games. If there is one thing that has always been clear to me about them, it is that they always allowed me to tell my own story. So my vision statement for Star Trek: Infinite is very simple: "This game allows the player to live their own Star Trek story" in the iconic timeline.

What is not simple is to execute it. Difficult decisions needed to be made. The first three of these being, When, Who and Where?

When?

Of these three questions, the real difficulty was to answer When?. In reality we considered all options, but the final choice was between two, the Archer Era or Picard Era. Archer had many reasons to be the winner, but our statement was clear: we wanted the player to live their own Star Trek story. We felt that if we focused on this era, the player was only going to be able to live their story as the Federation, and Star Trek is so much more than the Federation. The Next Generation era brings a lot of other challenges, but the political map it presented was the perfect canvas for the player to experience different civilizations’ points of view and develop their own story.

The choice was clear.

Who?

Not every species in the Alpha and Beta quadrants are equal or have the same capabilities. When it comes to choosing the other paths that the player can develop, in addition to the Federation, we looked for other Powers that have similar importance and means for fun competition. At this time, three new players joined the mix, The Klingon Empire, The Romulan Star Empire, and The Cardassian Union.

Empire Selection.png


Now, does that mean that we leave all the other species in the quadrant out? No, many other species join our game in the form of Support Powers—species that have a certain degree of power, but concentrate on providing services to our Major Powers, such as the Ferengi.

In addition, we will meet other species with FTL capabilities, but are not so developed. These species are called Minor Powers and will serve as opportunities for expansion and conflict for the Major Powers. Among them you can find Bolians, Talarians, Boslic, and many others.

first_contact_ufop_idanian.png


Where?

The Star Trek Milky Way is a vast space, mostly unexplored but with a rich lore. If we wanted to do it justice we had to focus on a smaller area and fill this with as much Star Trek as possible. That's why we chose to have our game concentrate on the Alpha and Beta quadrants.

Wait a minute! Exploration is iconic! If we present a galaxy that the player already knows, how much can they explore? Finding a way to balance the known with the unknown was one of our first technical challenges.

Seeing a familiar star system like Vulcan (also known as 40 Eridani) placed randomly in the map would feel jarring since we know its a close neighbor to the Sol system; a similar issue would arise with the relative positions of the four Major Powers, so we created a bespoke representation of the core neighborhood of the Federation where the series take place most of the time, and left the rest to be procedurally generated so players can’t anticipate what they will find when exploring the farther reaches of the quadrants.

But those 3 questions were just the beginning, and many decisions followed. Warp being the one that changed everything.

Warp Travel

One of the challenges of space strategy games is geography, how to give shape to the vast emptiness of space and how that shape affects its travelers. A very common and effective approach used by many modern games of the genre is the starlane graph we all know from Stellaris, and while this system can be controversial at times, in Star Trek it's simply a non-starter. You must be able to boldly go, in a straight line at warp 9, but then what stops you from reaching the extremes of the galaxy from the get go?

highway_ftl_travel_ufop.jpg


Well, speed is one, but Voyager was actually an inspiration for the solution! The difficulties of finding fuel, supplies and repair opportunities while deep in alien space far from home present a great challenge.

Warp range was the inevitable approach, provided by your space stations, forcing you to plan your infrastructure to enable your fleets to deploy and move about. Another factor in geography are political boundaries: you can’t just cross someone else’s space without permission (well, spies can…), even in a straight line towards a star outside of their domain. This of course changes war considerably, mostly doing away with choke points.

You can no longer amass a 200 ship fleet in the doorway to your empire, confident that the enemy cannot get through. Since they can simply go past you, strongholds and a more evenly-spread deployment of your fleets become paramount (pun intended), reinforcing that space geography. There is a lot more to war, thanks to our warp approach, but that is a story for another log.

Balance of Power

Another thing that comes with the territory of the Picard era is the political stage of the Alpha and Beta quadrants. Unlike many strategy games, in the Star Trek universe constant, all-out war is something even sworn enemies strive to avoid! There are reasons to seek peace, to quell the tensions between the Powers, and in part this tension is kept by a constant balance with no single Major Power ever gaining a definitive advantage over the others.

warscore_background.jpg


To reflect this in Star Trek: Infinite, we added two systems that interact with each other to push the galaxy into this back and forth in a way that seems organic and justified. The first is the balance of power, where you can clearly see the relative power of all four major players, and make decisions of who to befriend and who to ostracize, because the A.I. surely will…

The other system is galactic tension, because war does not affect only those involved in it! War pushes all factions into uncertainty and instability which, in turn, puts them under threat too! The longer the duration of a war, the more extreme measures will be considered, and the less you can trust that the crosshairs won’t fall on you next. Any action of aggression and violence increases this tension, and any move for collaboration and conciliation reduces it. If you let it go too far, society itself may crumble!

But if an all-out war is something we want to avoid, how can we expand without going to war? One answer we came up with is our new Principles mechanic.

Principles

Instead of having ethics, each “pop” (meaning population, the citizenry on your planets) may feel more attracted to the principles that represent each of the Major Powers. Among other gameplay elements, spies and governors become extraordinarily important in influencing how affiliated they are with these principles. Now why would I want a pop to seek to follow the principle of my power? A pop that follows a different principle than the power they belong to has a chance of defecting to his new affiliation!

galactic_peace_summit_minor.jpg


I wanted to be brief and, much like sitting down to watch “just one episode of TNG,” time flew by and we ended up going through a lot. I would like to tell you much, much more but I think that is quite a lot for this week already! I hope we can meet again soon!

End log,

Ezequiel Alejandro Maldonado
Game Director for Star Trek: Infinite
 
Well, speed is one, but Voyager was actually an inspiration for the solution! The difficulties of finding fuel, supplies and repair opportunities while deep in alien space far from home present a great challenge.

Warp range was the inevitable approach, provided by your space stations, forcing you to plan your infrastructure to enable your fleets to deploy and move about. Another factor in geography are political boundaries: you can’t just cross someone else’s space without permission (well, spies can…), even in a straight line towards a star outside of their domain. This of course changes war considerably, mostly doing away with choke points.

You can no longer amass a 200 ship fleet in the doorway to your empire, confident that the enemy cannot get through. Since they can simply go past you, strongholds and a more evenly-spread deployment of your fleets become paramount (pun intended), reinforcing that space geography. There is a lot more to war, thanks to our warp approach, but that is a story for another log.

And here we are 7 years later and see a solution that was deemed absolutely impossible for a game like Stellaris. And it's an official design statement, in the same forum space as Stellaris, from the publisher who brought us Stellaris.
I can't wait to put my hands on it, and I would be even happier if this will influence the Stellaris Devs and maybe we get a system like that in Stellaris to end the Doomstack menace and finally have engaging space combat.

P.S. 200 Ships is an understatement, we are talking about thousands of ships clipping into each other in one system.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How does this work for example with the Bajorans. I assume they start as subjects of the Cardassians and hate it. They would probably want to become part of the Federation but what would a Fed player need to do to convince them?

They go into a prolonged and in-depth negotiation system where each side presents compromises, including nearly every aspect of the game, from systems and demilitarized zones to technology, survey data, and naturally pacts, treaties, and guarantees, until they either reach a conclusion or a diplomatic incident happens and one party storms out of the room, triggering a quest line you assign a ship to, either to resolve this by espionage or another attempt at diplomacy.
Otherwise it comes to conflict.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Amazing, but I wish you would have gone a bit more into detail. Each of these points seems to warrant a dev log on their own. Let's take principles for example. How does this work for example with the Bajorans. I assume they start as subjects of the Cardassians and hate it. They would probably want to become part of the Federation but what would a Fed player need to do to convince them? How about the Klingons? They are spiritual and Warriors, They should go along well with each other.

I hope it doesn't become gimmicky where you can just 'influence' pops to flip to your ideology, i.e. make the Bajorans flip to Cardassian's outlook and now be happy.

The principles ideas sounds like a way of limiting your expansion, say, you can't integrate member worlds unless their pops have a majority outlook as your faction. So if anything is nearby that isn't with your ideology, you have to either ignore them or waste a ton of time flipping them.


Balance of power is something I think can make or break the game. If you get powerful, I will be really annoyed if it just defaults to "AI will now ally and whoop your butt" regardless of how the story has been panning out, simply because you're a gentle giant now. I think the mechanic has to work with/alongside the story. Like, if the mission tree gets me to ally with the Klingons, I really don't want Balance of Power mechanics overruling that and saying 'lol, you're too good at this game, now we go to war.'
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Yes, they have several bespoke unique ones, but also we themed a lot of the shared ones in such a way that shared ones will feel like they are made for that faction.

Any hopes of not getting a mixture of HoI IV 'National Focus' trees and the EU IV Mission trees, and instead having a more integrated dynamic system based on player actions and game states?

Something in line with starting diplomatic relations with the Klingons, which will trigger a dynamic event chain that can lead to having them either as an ally or a full member of the Federation or corse another war.
Rather than having to generically sign a Defensive Pact and press the button in the mission tree that has all green checkboxes to trigger an event pop-up or something along those lines.
 
This all sounds more exciting than I thought, but I have some questions.

Since they can simply go past you, strongholds and a more evenly-spread deployment of your fleets become paramount

This poses the age old question: If all my forces are spread over the entire frontline, what prevents an enemy from ammasing a doomstack and simply breaking through with ease, erradiacting my small defense force in one system?

Will combat be slowed down to allow reinforcements to arrive? Are there other systems in place?


Unlike many strategy games, in the Star Trek universe constant, all-out war is something even sworn enemies strive to avoid!

I agree completely, which is why I have always wanted for Stellaris a limited-war system. Or a system like raiding, or border conflicts, that result in limited warfare. Makes no sense to me that, for example, a simple raid requires all out war.

So my question: If you agree that constant all-out war is something undesireable, will you have system in place, that allow for small border conflicts, border skirmishes, raids, etc.? Things that do not end up with all-out war, but can still lead to fighting, and potentially escalation and eventually all-out war if it drags out too long and escalates too much?
 
  • 7
Reactions:
This all sounds more exciting than I thought, but I have some questions.



This poses the age old question: If all my forces are spread over the entire frontline, what prevents an enemy from ammasing a doomstack and simply breaking through with ease, erradiacting my small defense force in one system?

Will combat be slowed down to allow reinforcements to arrive? Are there other systems in place?




I agree completely, which is why I have always wanted for Stellaris a limited-war system. Or a system like raiding, or border conflicts, that result in limited warfare. Makes no sense to me that, for example, a simple raid requires all out war.

So my question: If you agree that constant all-out war is something undesireable, will you have system in place, that allow for small border conflicts, border skirmishes, raids, etc.? Things that do not end up with all-out war, but can still lead to fighting, and potentially escalation and eventually all-out war if it drags out too long and escalates too much?

Really good Doomstack question! I second this!


I think we will see Crisis like the Borg and the Dominion for the massive conflict parts.
 
When?

Of these three questions, the real difficulty was to answer When?. In reality we considered all options, but the final choice was between two, the Archer Era or Picard Era. Archer had many reasons to be the winner, but our statement was clear: we wanted the player to live their own Star Trek story. We felt that if we focused on this era, the player was only going to be able to live their story as the Federation, and Star Trek is so much more than the Federation. The Next Generation era brings a lot of other challenges, but the political map it presented was the perfect canvas for the player to experience different civilizations’ points of view and develop their own story.

The choice was clear.
Question: assuming that ST:I is successful, will you consider making DLCs allowing one to play in the Archer (ENT) era and/or Kirk (TOS) era? Or maybe even allowing one to play the ST:I version of a PDX "megacampaign" (Archer (ENT) -> Kirk (TOS) -> Picard (TNG))?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
This poses the age old question: If all my forces are spread over the entire frontline, what prevents an enemy from ammasing a doomstack and simply breaking through with ease, erradiacting my small defense force in one system?

Will combat be slowed down to allow reinforcements to arrive? Are there other systems in place?

In theory, nothing. But if I were a game designer, I'd make it so that while their doomstack can beat your scattered fleets, nothing forces you to throw them at the enemy. You can destroy his shipyards, bomb his core worlds, intercept supplies for the doomstack...

Of course, we'll have to see how it plays out ingame.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
out of question, what about peaceful expansion opportunities? As the Ferengi, can I slowly buy up and blackmail the galaxy with my gold pressed latinum and state secrets, only to be suddenly overun by the dominium? And yes, please tell me we gonna have the dominium war :)
 
While you stated we will have support and minor powers, but how will something like the Borg be implemented, given that they were a major overarching threat of the Picard era. Some kind of stellaris end game crisis that will have the powers have to try to work together to not be assimilated? Or are they simply beyond the scope of the game (for now at least...)?
 
While you stated we will have support and minor powers, but how will something like the Borg be implemented, given that they were a major overarching threat of the Picard era. Some kind of stellaris end game crisis that will have the powers have to try to work together to not be assimilated? Or are they simply beyond the scope of the game (for now at least...)?

The Borg are going to be this game's version of a crisis.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
out of question, what about peaceful expansion opportunities? As the Ferengi, can I slowly buy up and blackmail the galaxy with my gold pressed latinum and state secrets, only to be suddenly overun by the dominium? And yes, please tell me we gonna have the dominium war :)
The Ferengi aren't playable. It's just the Federation, Cardassians, Romulans and Klingons. Based on comments from the devs, no Dominion, the endgame is the Borg.
 
Question: assuming that ST:I is successful, will you consider making DLCs allowing one to play in the Archer (ENT) era and/or Kirk (TOS) era? Or maybe even allowing one to play the ST:I version of a PDX "megacampaign" (Archer (ENT) -> Kirk (TOS) -> Picard (TNG))?
While I am personally open to the idea of alternate startdates/scenarioes down the line, one possible problem with the idea of megacampaigns is that chronologically later mission trees are dependant on the map and lore being a certain way at the start. For instance the Klingon Picard era narrative would involve the fact that they and the federation got a much better relationship at the end of the Kirk era(due to the events of "Undiscovered country"). So if you play as the federation at a chronologically earlier date and focus on mending tensions with the Romulans instead of the Klingons then the default Picard era Klingon narrative can't work
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
If the Dominion isn't in the base game, it seems like fertile ground for a DLC. Though a total war scenario might interfere with the Federation's play style.

Sounds great, I hope no ethics means also no ideology wars or a rework of them.

Gone are the times of the Klingon People's Front and the People's Front of Klingon!

With only 4 major powers, hopefully we can get bespoke factions in civil wars. Houses for Klingons, accurate government names for Romulans (Empire vs Republic for example), generic democracy names or species for the Federation (Seperatists or Andorans vs Federation), and generic authority names for Cardassians (Union, Protectorate, etc).
 
While I am personally open to the idea of alternate startdates/scenarioes down the line, one possible problem with the idea of megacampaigns is that chronologically later mission trees are dependant on the map and lore being a certain way at the start. For instance the Klingon Picard era narrative would involve the fact that they and the federation got a much better relationship at the end of the Kirk era(due to the events of "Undiscovered country"). So if you play as the federation at a chronologically earlier date and focus on mending tensions with the Romulans instead of the Klingons then the default Picard era Klingon narrative can't work
Agreed, this would require preparing a bunch of alternate mission trees in advance, however this is far from being impossible to do.